HERETICS Lefebvrians AND VIRGIN vilified

 

The lefebvrism is a disease, a cancer from which the body of the Church must be healed, and if necessary should be bombarded with chemotherapy. The Lefebvrians is not clear that the reigning Pontiff as depositary of an authority that comes directly from Christ God, while they are self-invested with an authority that comes only from their pride, for this is difficult dialogue and the search for common points with those who live in such closed, proud and determined in their error.

 

 

"True theology does not pretend to attribute to God

what is not said, but merely explains

what he actually said "

[Antonio Love, aphorisms]

 

 

 

In my previous article [see who] I addressed the issue of the world of Lefebvre incentrandomi on some questions and asking questions that have remained unanswered all. My wise elder brother Antonio Livi raised some reasonable concerns centered on the concept of method adopted by me and that I myself share, since it is one of those debates in which everyone can be right or wrong, depending on the angle from which you are reviewing the subject matter. As in 'Patmos Island struggles amiably, remaining united in the common cause of service to the Church and to sound Catholic doctrine - even when the approach to certain issues may be different and therefore vary according to our subjective sensitivity - we have decided to involve readers in our exchanges of views, in which only people in bad faith may read "divisions" or "struggle" exist between the three of us; because each of us responds to what he writes and signature, not for what they write and sign others.

Following the avalanche of insults that fell on me through dozens of comments placed at the end of one of our articles and have embittered Antonio Livi first [see who], I had confirmation of just how high the touchiness of certain characters which on one hand claim to qualify for the right to challenge all, by Vatican II to the Magisterium of the Church until the reigning Pontiff, But on the other have the prerogative to not be in any way challenged the merits of their doctrinal opinions that personally I can also consider peregrine. In my vocabulary all this is called pride and closing and listening to the actions of God's grace, that must operate precisely meet our listening, our freedom, then our acceptance; only then the grace forms us and transforms us into our substance.

The questions raised in my pthe withdrawal of the article were addressed to the person to whom I therefore legitimate to raise doubts, provided that all due respect is implicit and explicit on my part. I also raised practical questions, expressing that certain foundations, news agencies, luxury magazines that cost only pagination, graphical and paper quality of an eye testa - without sales and subscriptions cover even half of half of the sun-pocket expenses - can be carried out with the manna from heaven. Not to mention sites and magazines telematics, everybody size luxury, not in eternal bill as our poor Patmos Island, well that is both beautiful graphics for both our written nothing short of exceptional, not to mention the extraordinary beauty of the fathers, three authentic Riace bronzes, just to exercise the great Christian virtue of humility and mix a little’ all with equally great virtue: the ironic humor.

Faced with this evidence, in my previous written, I did not ask where pulledro out money, I only asked for the Catholic faithful and our readers reassurance that the financial support did not come "from the far right American, nor by some wealthy Brazilian entrepreneurs, or by Europeans who got rich by magic in Brazil ». Ask similar reassurance, I think it is an attack of treason to individuals, species then if Numerio Negidio is president of a foundation and Aulus Agerio director of a magazine, namely public persons legally responsible for such as these you can also ask regard to any; nor do I think that this is not a transcendence outside of theology for which this magazine was born and to which you must follow and always will abide.

I believe that certain questions are not only relevant but due, especially to those who demand from their journalistic columns, from their books and their own public conferences, loyal transparency and consistency on the part of all public authorities and private, civil and religious of this world, thus implicitly boasting a virginal purity and not indifferent intentions; and this certainly can not allow it to be then discover with some crust on. Or maybe some people think that all these expensive devices made of foundations, Monthly size luxury, news agencies, magazines and telematic sites, are carried out with the offering of the poor widow in love of the Mass of St. Pius V and the pre-conciliar tradition lost? I get it: everything is held up with doilies that old granny Calitri embroiders reciting rosaries in pig Latin and to sell them to devolverne the proceeds to structures which to live, survive and organize all you have to arrange to have funds in the order of many hundreds of thousands of euro, because playing the so-called "traditionalists" is a "game" always and in itself quite expensive; and this for me, could be a serious problem of a pastoral.

Without going into the merits of what I said and affirmed, some wrote comments furious soaked insults unheard, trying to throw it on the personal and wondering who was I to raise certain issues not relevant. I complain that this is inconsistent, because in the great councils where they played the fate of the main Christological dogmas, often the debates are structured around political issues, social and economic, not coincidentally was the emperor in person - even if only formally - to preside over the councils, the seventh of which are chaired by a woman, Empress Irene. Thereby apply certain criteria of "relevance" or "no relevance" theological, you may come to invalidate the entire social doctrine of the Church, for example, stating that "not pay proper wages to the worker, considered sin that cries out to God for justice ", is a statement devoid of supports theological-logical-speculative-metaphysical, about how this political sociology or labor law, but not the theologians, task of which is to deal exclusively of other chores and speculation.

To these people I have raised questions and put questions to which no reply had arguments have left that to act were their supporters with screams from the stadium and infamous attacks and defamatory to me direct. Neither tell me that my arguments are not theological, ecclesiological and pastoral, why use the newspaper to an avowed atheist tied since the nineties to the right and to the American Zionist Movement International, to carry out a campaign of relentless criticism of the Holy Father, for me it is a matter ecclesiological serious and not a little disturbing, because on one hand we have the modernists, the other we have some fanatics Lefebvrians quantities of food from the American ultra right and from areas far from favorable to Catholicism and the papacy. That's why I want to understand why, one part, all these subjects traditio e of the Latins San Giovanni XXIII accuse of having purged the Easter Triduum prayer on "perfidious Jews" - since the term evil, for those who know Latin and not the late nineteenth-century ecclesiastical latinetto, should be read according to the etymology of faithless, implied, in Christ - the other here is the same deal with areas related to the Zionist Movement International. Tell me: I missed something? Am I the inconsistent, or rather they are certain untouchable and not criticism that this gentlemen pretend not to see it for whatever “good” e “right” it causes, enough to have put in association with Giuliano Ferrara and his now vulgar and insolent newspaper “anti-bergogliano”?

To those who reproached me of having attacked individuals, I replied that it would be enough to read some of my articles to find out that not long ago expressed doubts and criticism respectful towards the Holy Father, who in one of his impromptu utterances had spoken of the Sacraments and offerings to the priests [see who]. In my article I was strict and said that not only the Holy Father spoke of what they did not know but with similar statements had created confusion among the faithful and clergy in embarrassment. None of belonging both to the so-called Lefebvrian both to those who sympathize with the modernists raised questions about what I had written. That's why today I doubt there is a perfectly legitimate: you can possibly criticize, even strictly necessary, not appropriate expressions of the Holy Father, though not certain circles Lefebvrians and their elders?

In the long series of insults that I have rained down on him I was accused of being a nullity emerita who dares criticize as an eminent theologian Brunero Gherardini. That this old priest is an eminent theologian is true in the same extent that it is true that I am a nobody, What, however, that does not prevent me to address this critical calm elder Prato theologian of the Roman school sued for years by Lefebvrians, by sedevacantists and abusers of various term Traditio. Statement, this mine, before which one could argue: what does Gheradini? I believe - perhaps wrongly - that to put in place a cooperation in evil not enough to publish a pedagogical purpose the infamous cartoons of the journal Charlie Hebdo, To make understand, readers that they had not ever seen, the seriousness of what many had not grasped, then procacciandomi just criticism, with all the sacrosanct reasons Antonio Livi told me: "Your intentions were undoubtedly good, and you have well explained in a note at end of article, But you could avoid their inclusion in the article by John Cavalcoli ». Perhaps the same logic can be applied through the same criterion to Gherardini that allows subjects to use his person, his studies and his writings as a tool to address critical authority of an ecumenical council and all the successive popes from 1958 till today. Let me be clear, to do this is hardly Gherardini, faithful priest and theologian tirelessly to Catholic doctrine and to the Supreme Pontiff, which as such is limited only to allow his studies and writings are used for this purpose, without ever having denied or had dissociated himself from certain circles Lefebvrians who continue to exploit it without having procured to date one of his public dissent.

When these same circles tried to make use of some of my writings, you go to see how - even in legitimate criticism of me facing certain drifts ecclesial or pastoral choices perhaps not particularly happy with the Pope - I reacted with drawn sword defending the Church's Magisterium, Vatican II and the Holy Father. Not to mention the works of Gherardini granted in French publication editions of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, with all that this may involve manipulation of the person at the level of one part, legitimate and legitimizing the other. That said it remains undisputed that Gherardini can do what he wants it to free those who want to use his works for campaigns anti-conciliarist that he does not approve of but that did not disapprove. For my part I am free to criticize her for this act, with all the grace of the case and with the estimate due to a venerable elder brother and a great theologian. And this is an issue across the theological and pastoral, based on a substance against which you can not blame me too much for lack of form, which also has its great importance to express properly the best essences of the substance itself.

Why would insolent challenge certain Lefebvrians that starting from historical criteria end up playing on the theological, beating on the authority of Peter and the criteria of his infallibility, paralyzed screens fossilized in the First Vatican Council? I could say and rebuke: but they are all scholars … educated people … People of great elegance ...
So what?
Maybe the devil, the unsurpassed master of sowing confusion, of doubts and divisions, looks like a goat or smelly like a farmer illiterate? It seems to me that behind the veneer of “tradition” and of “sound doctrine”, behind certain outstanding scholars there are entrepreneurs, freelancers, politicians, international associations that often have nothing to Catholic, sometimes not even a Christian. And this is precisely the paradigm eloquent man of great skill and intellect that is Giuliano Ferrara, that I rightly quoted beyond the person itself - that is to say precisely as a paradigm - asking in my previous article if by chance there was a good and a bad atheism, seen that some have torn his clothes for weeks before the Holy Father guilty of them said to have agreed to be interviewed atheist Eugenio Scalfari in a newspaper of the left, while precisely the most critical of the Holy Father feel instead of all entitled to publish articles of disagreement with the Pope in the newspaper atheist Giuliano Ferrara, but heads a right-wing newspaper. In what would, therefore, the irrelevance of my question?

Mine was therefore a pertinent question addressed to Roberto de Mattei and before which are always waiting to be answered; because for now the only response received were the insults of laborers Lefebvrian, which is not, as some would have you believe, a minority of sparse infiltrates. The subjects that I have attacked in forms in which even the most sinful priests Orbe should be defamed, make up the majority of this idyllic setting that defends the real Catholic tradition; to be the minority are the gentlemen and gentlewomen of great education, culture, thickness academic and so, used as a public face presentable, that is to say little more than four cats.

Or to put it so sad and easy to document: you go around Italy and it is subject to higher the number of priests who warmly welcomed and fervor Motu Proprio Benedict XVI on the Missal of St. Pius V, have ceased to celebrate Mass with the old order and no longer want to hear about it. Needless to say: supporters lefevbriane defend themselves by accusing these priests and spreading falsehoods about them emeritus, talk about conspiracies and boycotts, they affirm that the priests «have been ensnared by modernist and hyper conciliarist bishops … threatened them to cut off his legs … to beat them in some country parish …». Since I myself have made the sad experience of what, I will explain now why many priests have made act of denial; and I will explain not in my name, but on behalf of many of my confreres. Many priests - and I repeat many - have ceased with regret these celebrations because they were left with the churches full of these fanatical supporters, including my brother who was even pushed because he did not want a large group of youths entered the church with the flags and symbols of Forza Nuova. So not only, my brothers, have not been enmeshed, but when several of their bishops have them requested to continue to ensure that celebration at least once a week, they replied: "If he imposes it on me out of obedience, I can't refuse". And hardly, a bishop, imposes a priest to celebrate against his will for assemblies “Original” formed by people who go to discourse before and after Mass on Popes are all anti popes heretics from 1958 following, the Vatican II council apostatic, the Missal of Paul VI on the model developed by the Lutheran Mason Annibale Bugnini and so on. But maybe, scholars of high lineage and respectable people as those who have dared to mention in my previous article, though not priests know more than me. For this we consider from now free to contradict me, but the answer to that point will no longer be my, but rather a collection made available by this our online magazine of all fed testimonies of many of my brethren scattered from Cefalu to Bolzano, so are the priests who celebrate and that for reasons of expediency pastoral ceased to celebrate with old order posted, to explain what happened to them with certain faithful, with all due respect to those lay people who have not celebrating the sacred mysteries not hesitate however to deny the concrete with blatant false and painful pastoral experiences of us priests, when our real experiences do not match their dreams ideological.

The lefebvrismo is a disease, a cancer from which the body of the Church must be healed, and if necessary should be bombarded with chemotherapy. The Lefebvrians is not clear that the reigning Pontiff as depositary of an authority that comes directly from Christ God, while they are self-invested with an authority that comes only from their pride. Per this is difficult to dialogue and the search for common points with those who live in such closed, proud and determined in their error. That's why I consider it intolerable that the improvident and insolent bishop of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, Bernard Fellay, has dared to publicly ask the Holy Father Francis epitetandolo as "an authentic modernist ' [see who], perfectly aware that Pius X, through his Encyclical Sheep feeding Domici, defined modernism as the synthesis of all heresies. The Holy Father Francis is not the meek Benedict XVI who opened his arms all the way to the heretics Lefebvrians, while procacciandosi in exchange two sound slaps, given that they demand the impossible really: that the Church disavow an entire ecumenical council. The reigning Pontiff does not seem prepared to be slapped much and what it will do when the time will be well done and never earned enough by these unreasonable people, with all our support and all our praise. Why the Church, as stated Father Divo Barsotti preaching spiritual exercises to the Roman Curia in 1971 at the invitation of Blessed Paul VI: «… is the custodian of a coercive power because God has entrusted him, then you must use it ".

Having not yet acquired the science and wisdom two theologians elderly as Antonio and Giovanni Livi Cavalcoli - always assuming manage to acquire one day -, my current temperament, perhaps pastorally crude, perhaps even wrong, leads me to feel that these are our times in which you request the strength and courage of a certain radicalism Pauline free from any form of fundamentalism. But above all we need to start with an idea to familiarize painful as not easy to accept: Lefebvre perhaps are even worse than the modernists. Affirmation latter on which I know does not agree Giovanni Cavalcoli, that for this will not fail to explain his point of view that is certainly compared to my wiser and relevant. In my opinion questionable, while the modernists would like to rephrase the papacy to the specious light of their erroneous ideas of collegiality, falling into relativism dissipating; the Lefebvrians, the papacy, are showing to attack him in every way in the worst ways in the name of “vera” tradition, dell ' “bona fide” love for the Church and the historical method used to arrive at sowing doubts about the legitimacy of theological Peter that have occurred over the last sixty years and their infallibility in matters of doctrine and faith. So if on the one hand you get to relativism, the other leads to a nihilism of gnostic matrix-Pelagian. Needless to say, all this translates soon - and so the penalty sneaky - in serious doctrinal errors unfortunately taken for good because … how could some educated, educated and highly placed gentlemen, Catholics so devoted and loyal to Tradition, say the wrong things? No, some things they say because they suffer for the Church, because the love, because they want to defend it … so, if its wrong, not condanniamoli, we try to talk to them and find all possible points common …

… in this game do not mean to fall for sneaky and I have taken that road that makes me in every way in solidarity with the spirit and wisdom of the two fathers of the elderly 'Patmos Island: with the Church, in the Church and in the Church, that is not our idea of ​​subjective Church, but the Church of Christ ruled by Pietro of which we are instruments and devoted servants. And if our being priestly and theological is based on these assumptions, any divergent opinions or different way of feeling ends up leave time that is, just as we are demonstrating with these our writings.

We do not speak of the allegations of lack of style or even blasphemy I have rained down on him for having ironically stated that it was better to read Play Boy certain books instead of misleading Cristina Siccardi, so pedestrian that false facts and historical situations to reach a doctrine adulterated, then ideological. His attempts to manipulate the figures of St. Pius X and Blessed Paul VI to legitimize the serious errors Marcel Lefebvre, would be comical if it were not tragic. We take one of the many pearls of this writer, obviously public and documented, then heard from his lips by all our readers:

"Monsignor Lefebvre was a knight without fear and without reproach with a force that was definitely not human, he acted like he could act during a Sant'Atanasio Arianism, acted as a St. Catherine of Siena, which alone has faced the Popes […] this is when Monsignor Lefebvre becomes the champion of the most important things, of the most essential, that is, a champion of faith, in the sense that defending Mass defends the faith itself […] Monsignor Lefebvre acted so much love for Jesus Christ and then for the Church and for the Pope […] Ecône was a place where you really can defend itself by bombing liberal, modernists, relativists and where it was possible to keep the Tradition ".

It was the face of these delusions fanta-Catholics I claimed to be a thing less serious and misleading reading Play Boy instead the books of some people unfortunately taken for good by many believers of Christ, although of course, a few lines later, clarifying the obvious paradox - which as such was already explicit in and of itself in my statement - I invited you not to read this magazine in which there is nothing edifying, but this was not enough to appease certain minds.

Faced with all this my logic and my way of acting may be contestable. But I believe that these people who always take terribly seriously, that behind their aura of formal education and gallantry sow such errors, should be taken just around a sort of duty Catholic. Because when you compare me seriously and “valid” arguments a Lefebvre to St. Athanasius of Alexandria who struggle against Arianism, as did the Siccardi pontificating at the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, then comparing subliminally Vatican II to the Arian heresy and the Church Fathers who participated to Arian bishops; or when other much more furious declare a heretic and apostate Pontiff a whole Church from an Ecumenical Council; when an eminent theologian elected by these people in their backbone and generous dispenser of various prefaces to their books, plays on the concept of pastoral council ambiguously, though animated by all the best intentions, but for which certain ideologues Lefebvrians not take into account, inevitably you end up giving tools to these characters to finally arrive to say that the last Council of the Church is not dogmatic, but only pastoral, then remove him from authorities, after making use and abuse of Brunero Gherardini, who never claimed similar things, being a great theologian and above all a true man of God.

And before this I can only respond by inviting the people of God not to take anything into consideration and to laugh out loud on similar blunders of practices presented in a serious way as if they were genuine truth of faith. Of course, it should all be done with style and intelligence, especially when you criticize susceptible lords, scholars, noblemen and noblewomen prostrate at Lefebvrians and with an eye to the secret wrung sedevacantists; than on Correspondence Romana, Levied Christian, church&Post-Council, Mass in Latin, from The Gazette devout atheist Giuliano Ferrara, etc… insolentiscono the Roman Pontiff every day. And in the face of these facts I feel free to say that these people are to expire, not that I react to their serious doctrinal errors destituendoli foundation with sacrosanct sneer, as in my opinion we should do with all those that cover their blunders of the seriousness of that nonsense can not in itself have.

 

A final example before which priests would that much more mature and wise of me, together with theologians with science much greater than mine, I would explain in what capacity you could and you should take seriously a heretical assertion of this kind, recognizing those who have uttered the aura of serious scholar, so steeped itself of ignorance and arrogance:

"What Bergoglio is demolishing even admirable energy with the Catholic Church, and I emphasize "Catholic", is in deeds and not in opinions. But I disagree with those who say that he does in the name of a Third Vatican Council undeclared and, so, the remedy is to apply correctly the Second Vatican. The disasters that led the Church to the brink of the precipice and many Catholics to lose faith are precisely the correct application of the Second Vatican: not of his spirit, but his letter. I've said it many times and I do not tire of repeating: this Church deserves this Pope. On the contrary, This Pope is the perfect expression of this Church which has less and less of a Catholic ' [full text who].

Statements like this Alessandro Gnocchi is in itself a grotesque theologically, ecclesial and historical. Grotesque thus became in this and only this for the online magazine Levied Christian - Belonging to the Lepanto Foundation - kneeling by now as a devoted handmaid to the worst heresies of Lefebvrian origin, What proved to be Gnocchi and other columnists through their writings that represent a blatant and painful denial of Catholic communion. Then there is little or nothing to talk or to look for common points with sowers and seeders of such poisons that require express severe and unacceptable judgments invalidating an entire ecumenical council, the Magisterium of the Church and the Roman Pontiffs last half century. I do not exclude, however, be mistaken for choosing to act in that spirit that I defined earlier as healthy radicalism Pauline.

Therefore, if the good soul of Massimo Troisi said: "We just have to cry ', I feel for say that before these blunders, the result of real closures and listening to the actions of God's grace, we just have to laugh. The rice is in fact healthy and effective medicine that can help us to support our good faithful ever more lost and confused, urging them not to seek answers to their questions in the books, in articles and lectures of these confused souls who are elected to masters of thought and proper Catholic opinion, and finally taking them for what they really are: comedians extraordinary as unaware of what, then rendered particularly comedians that are their biggest mistakes they take terribly seriously. Because pride, view on the other hand, has implications that are often really hilarious comedians, the only thing is that the superb, this, unfortunately does not know, because pride closes, blinds and removes any healthy Christian and want to laugh and wholesome self-irony.

Irrationalism INTOLERANT OF ISLAMIC OPPOSED THE WEST ONLY irrationalism TOLERANT OF ATEI

 

[ REPRODUCED IN THE FRENCH VERSION OF THE TELEMATIC MAGAZINE BENOIT AND ME ]

WHO

 

So the West can not oppose irrationalism of a morality derived from the Koran without any mediation theological much less philosophical - thus ignoring the natural law - another kind of irrationalism, to legislation "secular" without God and the natural right, which is precisely the Of the lex aeterna.

 

 

I am speaking about the sad events of January 2015 in Paris (the murderous violence of Islamic fanatics and the great demonstration of solidarity with the editors Charlie Hebdo to express an opinion different from that of the other editors of The Island of Patmos. The readers of this online magazine does not surprise you, let alone be offended by this difference of opinions, because we have always said that we wanted to bring every problem topical theological principles of the true doctrine of the Church, i.e. dogma, illustrating it, however with comments and applications which by their nature belong to the field dell'opinabile, there where no opinion necessarily require the unanimous consent. I remembered a few occasions the old motto patristic: “In necessary, Unitas; in doubtful, Libertas; in all, caritas”.

So, without wanting to miss the charity, I express my opinion with all freedom. To be as clear and precise, will enunciate in three points:

1) First of all, I consider "sad events" as the murderous violence by Islamic fanatics as the great demonstration of solidarity with the editors of Charlie Hebdo by French politicians and leaders of many other countries in the Western. Both of these facts - military and ideological - judge them enormous moral gravity, but not as much as it is a third fact, the one that gave rise to the other two, namely the pertinacious publication dissemination of obscene and heavily irreverent cartoons against Islam (with a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad) and against Christianity (with blasphemous depiction of the Holy Trinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Immaculate Mother).

2) The reaction to these cartoons was, by Islamists, of furious indignation, especially for the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, that they believe should not be represented by anyone ever; the most aggressive have resorted to terrorism in France and new waves of violent persecution of Christians (all considered equally complicit in the "great Satan", ie the West) Middle East and Africa, and more and more explicit is the threat to extend the "holy war" to all the West, even threatening Rome, center of Christianity.

3) The reaction to aggression Islamists, by Western, was the exaltation of the alleged indiscriminate freedom of anti-religious satire, to the point that the irreverent cartoons were distributed in all countries, not only with the special editions of Charlie Hebdo (recently in seven million copies, also distributed outside France, in Italy with The daily show) but also with the reckless reproduction by information bodies Catholics, which over everything they preferred to select the cartoons against Christianity rather than those against Islam that had caused the massacre in Paris. The political-cultural magazine Studies, directed by religious Jesuits, has offered to its readers with the absurd pretext of wanting to show that Catholics are not "fundamentalists" and know they also respect the "freedom of satire", laughing gladly of their institutions and their representatives. Even The Island of Patmos, without my being consulted relevant, thought of having to play such horrendous anti-Christian cartoons in support of an excellent article on the subject signed by Father John Cavalcoli. I consider this choice journalistic - despite good intentions, including that of documenting the severity of the facts of which you speak - a wrong choice, because materially constitutes a "cooperation in evil”, involuntary complicity with the sin of others, which in this case - the offense to the Name of God - is even greater sin.

Point out that the problem of how to reconcile freedom of opinion with the respect of religious institutions and their symbols is a matter entirely secondary in relation to the enormity of the blasphemy act as intrinsically immoral, as an offense against God. Faced with the facts of which we are speaking, a person of proper criterion, and even more a theologian, should not accumulate many socio-cultural considerations but detect what is immeasurably worse than all the rest: that those infamous cartoons Charlie Hebdo contain, among many obscenities and insults irreverent - all despicable things - even curses in the proper sense, ie desecration of the holy name of God, and this is in itself directly and the "matter" of that grave sin from which God warns all men with the second commandment of the Decalogue.

To explain better, I have to remember that "blasphemy", etymologically, mean generically "insult". Now, when the victim dell'ingiuria is only human, it goes against the fourth and the fifth commandment, and the blame more or less severe, according to the dignity of the victim; instead, when the injury is addressed directly to God is blasphemy in the proper sense.

Muslims speak of "blasphemy" even when it is Muhammad, that even they consider God but only his Prophet. And so it is not exactly blasphemy, how to Christianity, the derision of the representatives of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, Including Pope. Not that they are tolerable acts: are desecrating actions against institutions and people who represent the true religion, instituted by Christ Himself. But - I repeat again – the severity of these sins is absolutely not comparable with the gravity of the sin of blasphemy, that is the fault of those who offend the Father, his son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit (and remember that, by virtue of the union hypostatic, also the insult to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother Dio, constitutes a real blasphemy).

the, since childhood, I have suffered so much for the blasphemies I felt around - and since I have felt several Tuscan -, and sometimes reacted with berating some animosity blasphemers. Then, as a priest, I had to take a calmer I contain, imitating the meekness of Jesus. But the offense done to God in public profaning his name and that of his Mother has always gone a deep pain and the Church I learned to personally make many acts of reparation, in addition to the prayers in repair of curses that are recited during exposure Eucharistic. The reaction against blasphemers went quickly into the background, indeed even then there was more. They too are the subject of prayer, asking God not to take account of their sin, "They know not what they do". In short, in front of the blasphemy, a person of conscience suffers for blasphemy because he knows that God deserves not only respect but also acts constant adoration and thanksgiving by all men. No matter, a Christian who is endowed with common sense even before faith, the fact that blasphemy hurt his ego and he feels personally offended in his belonging to a religion. What really counts, when it comes to blasphemy, not the subjective and sentimental but the objective and moral. Because blasphemy is primarily a sin, one of the most severe, because it goes directly against the second commandment of the Decalogue, so trivialized by Roberto Benigni, that is Prato like me and does what it can, poor thing, but they give too much attention and too much money even when wants to laugh with arguments taken from theology.

This is not an abstract discourse and idle: need to understand that almost all Catholic commentators have responded inadequately to unpleasant facts related to "blasphemous cartoons", because they have only ever spoken of respect for religions, for their followers and their symbols. For example, the bishop of Verona, Monsignor Giuseppe Zenti, in an article published in the diocesan weekly, Verona faithful, titled "How do you reconcile the blasphemy with the secular democratic?”, deprecates simply "the cultural climate" that made possible the publication of the "blasphemous cartoons": a climate, specifies the prelate, who is "that of barbarism, in which there is no right of citizenship for the respect of people and their human and religious' [see who]. Another bishop, the Patriarch of Venice Francesco Moraglia, speaking to the Jews said: "There are issues that can not be treated with literary genres like the irony, especially when this is fierce: when the responsibility is public, our words are heavier stones » [see who]. Too little, I say. Most serious of any lack of "respect for people and their human and religious', and even more serious offenses to the ministers of God, is an offense against God himself, God as a person and not as a reality idea of ​​someone or symbol of something else.

Not even Father John Cavalcoli, in the comment to the facts of Charlie Hebdo, seems to take due account of the terrible fact of blasphemy repeated everywhere in millions of copies, but prefers to recommend a greater dialogue between Christianity and Islam, starting from the common faith in the God of Abraham and practicing mutual respect. Even the Holy Father, intervening on the subject, spoke of the inevitable reaction - he calls unjust but humanly understandable - that you can expect when you causes offense to a person, for example, speaking ill of his mother [see who]. Ma, I repeat, here are not in play the "horizontal" relationships among men in human society, but the relationship "vertical" of men with God. If you stay in the line "horizontal" and we are only concerned to determine the manner and the way to protect the honor and rights of some social subject, but uniform, Also in the West, the typical mentality of Islam, where everything is political, and there is no natural law but only positive law established arbitrarily by the Member.

So the West can not oppose irrationalism of a morality derived from the Qur'an without any mediation theological much less philosophical - then ignoring the natural law - another kind of irrationalism, to legislation "secular" without God and the natural right, which is precisely the Of the lex aeterna. In the West, after all the rhetoric defenseless of freedom of opinion and even satire, they wanted to react to the military violence of Islamist ideology justifying violence of satirical newspaper - all told: “I'm Charlie"-. Then, the contingent fact it has gone to theorize the "right" to insult any religion - but especially Christianity, and of course Islam -, proclaiming the "right to blasphemy" or "right to blasphemy ', that French President Holland has included between civil rights and the achievements of freedom that the West has inherited from the French Revolution. Of course, from a point of view merely cultural-historical, Holland is right: The trouble began with the Enlightenment own anti-Catholic, whose representatives, however, were not really atheists (neither was Voltaire). What did the Enlightenment Masonic - outweigh Catholic Enlightenment, which had among its representatives two Neapolitan intellectuals, Giambattista Vico and St. Alphonsus Maria de 'Liguori - was to replace the worship of God with the worship of Political Power. Like this, Jacobins in France devised the solemn enthronement of an image of the Goddess of Reason in the basilica of Notre Dame in Paris, no more than the house of God but exaltation of revolutionary thought. Like this, in the United States, the Pilgrim Fathers did God the flag of independence aspirations by the Anglican Church, ruled by the King of England, and the dollar bill wrote "In God we trust”. Two centuries later, the Nazis were fighting their battle neopagan keeping the motto of the German emperors: “God with us!"... In Conclusion, history shows us the rapid evolution of an operation ideological secularization, at the height of which is not only God is no longer recognized as the foundation of natural law and the logical holder of the right to worship by all men, but it is even denied in his own reality. To operate this substitution, as evidence of an Absolute is inherent in human reason, Enlightenment modern contemporary drew a grotesque cultural regression, making all'idolatria, the deification of the "elements of this world" as named by St. Paul.

First you should set up the Christian society history records companies who practiced the worship of idols of the nation (ancient East) or the cult of the military chief (the two Caesar Roman Empire, to which the Christians refused to offer sacrifice). Modernly, secularist ideology wanted again deify the Political Power (the "State", the "Country" or the "People"). To impose this deification secularism borrows from Christianity the language of the sacred, which in itself makes sense only when referring to God: here is the "civil religion" theorized by Jean-Jacques Rousseau; here is the altar of the Fatherland Savoian after the fall of Rome; here is "the sacred boundaries" of the Fatherland; here is the worship of the memory of the martyrs (in Fascist you spoke of "martyrs fascists', immediately after the "martyrs of the Resistance"); this is the "apostle of freedom" (Joseph Mazzini); here is the "pilgrimage" to the mausoleum of Lenin etc.. The sense of the sacred is past all the political rhetoric: the Sacred authentic, the Holy par excellence, ie God, no longer has any public recognition as reality itself. If it turns evoked, is only to describe "the religious feeling" of some group of citizens, to which the State may graciously grant some freedom of worship.

That being the case, is too little, I said, simply plead, satire against the blasphemous of Western newspapers, respect for the subjective rights of people who believe in God, and that the sole purpose of ensuring social peace. For example, Compass on the Daily 18 January I read an article by Ettore Malnati titled "The offense to religious feeling does not help coexistence" [see who]. I repeat again: too little! Here it is the respect due to God, which undoubtedly exists even if the state secularist says that is not true, that "is not". State secular anti-religious satire, including blasphemy, is only a lawful manner to express rational criticism of a subjective feeling irrational. But the truth is that blasphemy is an injustice, a moral disorder (that is a shame) absolute gravity, because what is being violated, first of all, is the primary law that God has respect, honor and adoration. Propose, as has been done, that the state upholds the existence of a "right to blasphemy" is equivalent to formalize the implicit premise atheistic secular state, his "material constitution": we claim that the State must explicitly assert - without having any authority, neither logical nor moral - that God does not exist, that what some call "God" is only a subjective idea tolerable in private but not worthy of public protection. While I have other ideas, for example, the idea of ​​being worthy of respect and esteem as gay. For this reason we can not absolutely offend nor criticize gays (is the crime of "homophobia") but you can offend God, because God does not exist. Instead, offending a head of state is the offense of defamation, because the head of state exists, and of course the state knows. This is the logic of speech, if logic is. In reality it is not logic but of mere arrogance on the part of, to maintain power, must continue to impose its cultural and ideological hegemony. The state was formed arbitrarily absolute authority, so explicitly considered the source of all truth and moral metaphysics, and therefore legal (who exists and has the right to respect and who is not).

Positive law has legitimacy only if presupposes and respects the natural moral law, starting from the certainty that God exists as the first cause and final end of all, and therefore as universal Legislator. Before, about the offense to the holy name of God, I was speaking of the first and second Commandment. This and all other constitute the Decalogue, which is nothing if not a codification of the natural moral law of the Old Testament. It contains so fully intelligible fundamental moral norms that every man knows spontaneously and is obliged to observe faithfully, as taught by the great philosophical tradition, and also the Holy Scriptures. No need to know the Law of Moses, St. Paul says in his Letter to the Romans, to honor and love God as creator and legislator. Like this, today, we must say that there is no need of a positive law of civil society not to blaspheme. Of course, a modern state Western, who claims to be "secular", not only did not keep the laws against blasphemy that before had been variously formulated, but even impose a law in favor of the "right to blasphemy".

We must react statist ideology, which is one of the most bitter fruits of idealism and remember that it is rather the state that does not exist: instead there are men and women who make up civil society, men and women who, as citizens of a nation are given or received a particular legal form for public institutions (government, justice, defense, tax etc.), and among these there are some citizens who exercise public functions. One and the other (private citizens and public officials) have an intellect and a conscience, and they know what is the obvious reality for all, and from this knowledge base (which in philosophy is called the "common sense") form their opinions, at large, on immediate issues. By the consent of all the evidence of common sense comes in so many different ways to form positive law, valid if in harmony with the will of the people, but first and foremost with the natural moral law.

Those who still have the ability to think for themselves knows that the metaphysical truth and morality is an achievement that human reason is based on the experience obtained when immediate and universal and then also on critical reflection (the philosophy), which are the foundations of any rational acceptance of divine revelation. Faced atheistic indoctrination state must return to the evidence that God exists, even if those who govern the state does not want to recognize it. Recognizes common sense and philosophy: no true philosopher professed atheism (it showed Etienne Gilson with his book Atheism difficult), and no scientist has ever been able to prove with his tools of investigation that there is no God. An influential Italian philosopher, work in the sixties of the last century, he wrote:

"The route of man to God is presented as the most difficult and the most pressing. Without reference to the Absolute in fact all values ​​remain suspended and the man is exposed to the continuous risk of being overwhelmed by the temporality and of getting lost in the pitfalls of contingency. The various attempts to evade the problem of God atheism in its polyhedral shapes up to contemporary forms of so-called "theology of the death of God", show the dialectic never resolved the drama disconcerting man down here can not draw and possess God, while always felt somehow that they can not live without God " (Cornelius the carpenter, The man and the risk of God).

Atheism State, as that which has prevailed in the West, is conceivable only in a purely political horizon: but not politics as an exercise of power regulated by criteria of justice in sight for the common good, but of politics as a conflict of interest for the conquest or retention of power by an ideological force, economic and military. Such a policy seeking popular support with demagogic speeches, turned to the feeling and not the conscience of citizens; e, when it reaches its goals, here is that the social order is radically compromised through laws which have no connection with the natural right. But laws contrary to natural law are not true laws, have no moral value, but are reduced to bullying, to tyranny, to despotism. No matter, from this point of view, that the form of government is democratic or totalitarian: in both cases it must be recognized that a power management (judiciary, government, parliamentary) ignore the natural law ensures that the political class is reduced to a criminal (huge robbery), as St. Augustine said already at the time of the transition between the Roman Empire and the barbarian kingdoms.

Now, the conscience of a man gifted, precisely, of conscience, will cause it to behave well with God, both in private life and in public, without the need for legal constraints in one direction or another. From the point of view of personal conscience there is no problem. The problem arises when the personal consciousness leads to an interest of public affairs and to take a stand in the face of unjust laws. So many people are the ways to take a stand: with their active intervenento in shaping public, with diversity of form and social criticism (the teaching, the use of mass media), by personal example that it is right or not to observe and, exercising the right to vote when circumstances permit, help to ensure that it is not approved or if already approved will be abolished. Many have done it and are doing it, for example as regards abortion, (question of established law) or public recognition of homosexual unions (question creating the right).
But the paradoxical aspects of this opposition of "secular state" is that the Absolute, ie God, is not considered real, while the State, that is related to an idea of ​​society, is considered real. Relativism, denies any absolute - which is impossible for the basic laws of logic - and ends up shut himself in solipsism irrationalistic. Typical irrationalism is making speeches that continually fall in contradiction (the self-denying discourse), and therefore more wrong that are properly senseless, are authentic nonsenses. The "secular state" professes irrationalism as much as "Islamic state", namely the politico-religious ideology of Islam denounced by Benedict XVI in Regensburg speech.

WE ARE THE CHANGE OF AN ERA, THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS MUST STAY THE PROCEEDINGS AND PROCEED ON THE WINGS OF FAITH

 

There is a growing army of ranting “traditionalists” who can not understand thatChurch is not the Holy Father Francis, as he first was of Benedict XVI, Pius XII, of Pius X. It was not Peter himself chose as his vicar on earth by the Word of God in person. The Church of Christ is, and is still governed by the Holy Spirit; and as has been and may still be disfigured by men, will always remain holy and immaculate Bride of the Redeemer.

The task of the fathers of the Island of Patmos is to convey the virtue of hope, inviting the living members of the People of God to live and practice this theological virtue that the Apostle Paul puts between faith and charity [CF. The Cor 13, 1-8]. Placed as a virtue because watershed "in the middle" there is no compromise, there is the point of union, l'amalgam. And since the rows of this magazine we are not accustomed to proceed by moods or passions but for broken free from the theological rigor sociologisms and newspeak, it is necessary to reiterate that faith and charity are not even thinkable, without amalgam of hope. Each player inspired by sincere Catholic sentiment, free from the closures originated from 'I want»Increasingly substituted"What does God want from me», will understand that from a faith without hope, or a charity hopeless, will come out a body without a backbone, a clam. And a shellfish can not be the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church of which He is the head and we limbs [on "hope" to refer my previous article, who].

Giovanni Cavalcoli, Antonio Livi and I, in various writings have already complained to sorrow, without envy dictated by ulterior motives, as a team of incompetent belonging to the world of so-called "Tradition" it is falling more and more in the role of theologians, ecclesiologists, canonists, Church historians ... without having the preparation and maturity required when addressing certain complex issues in public, or by means of written statements directed at undetermined numbers of readers. It is neither healthy nor Christian practice often lightly soaked omocentrismi the delicate areas of ecclesiology, theology and pastoral; matters to which the three of us spend long years, or entire decades of life, as in the case of my two older brothers, always accompanying good doctrine with pastoral ministry and above all with obedience in faith to ecclesiastical authority. Then, if the blatant incompetence list further presumption and self-righteous fanaticism, everything will be even more serious. And if this aggravating in itself already sufficient in terms of harmfulness, the lack of freedom deriving from the voluntary imprisonment in the microcosm of the ideology within which dwells the only true and pure and unique Catholic thinking is added as an extreme touch, then the disaster is total and these individuals will be seriously harmful to all those devout Catholics who often end up in good faith by taking seriously some of their erroneous statements.

For this call Catholics Devotees that are moving with increasing difficulties in these our difficult scenarios ecclesial, looking more and more comfort at us priests, both in the confessional and in spiritual direction, reading the pleasant background articles that accompany the images of the models of perturbing Playboy, but not books Cristina Siccardi and Carlo Manetti, avoiding to drink with them as if they were texts containing irrefutable truths. I'm serious and without penalty scandal: because doing the proper proportions, a magazine erotic result in any case less harmful of fanta-ecclesiologies, theologies of fiction and fiction stories of the Church spread by praticoni burdened by ideological prejudices and poor of adequate knowledge of theology.

As my paradox is evident, inviting good Catholics not to read the works of Siccardi that exploits St. Pius X to pull water to the mill of Lefebvre and advance an ideology of anti-Vatican II, remains entirely undisputed that invite them at the same time not to read even Playboy, because inside there is little uplifting. A similar call applies to misleading conjectures "theological" Mary Guarini, director of the following blogs church&postcouncil, which recently awarded sum sacredness to a external accident, the Latin language [see who], used to implement inevitable discussion behind the lines the authority of the Second Vatican Council, whose seated was formed by all the bishops of the Catholic lacking though the analytical capabilities of the sum theologian Guarini, which would send gladly a famous sermon in honor of St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori on pride. The Guarini is a lovable person, exemplary wife and mother, a life of hard work toand shoulders during which hath been adept in theological studies, I love myself and for this I will not be touched by the fact that she is characterized by a limiting element and at the same time dangerous: the inability to listen beyond herself good teachers, except for those who tell her what she wants to hear, or those being bad teachers and living in the error approve what wrong often says. A woman animated by human seriousness and the best intentions of the sacred liturgy that made its workhorse, although it is not clear the metaphysical concept of immutable substances and accidents outside itself and by itself changing, including the tongue — which remains an external accident — used to convey the eternal immutable substance from the ineffable Eucharistic Sacrifice.

Disquisendo of liturgy and polemic on Novus Ordo Mass the Guarini does not state nor true nor plausible but only the ideological cloaked by an unlikely theological. From some of his writings emerge deficiencies is about the history of the Church is dogmatic about the sacramental, especially when you leave to go to secure statements - taken as such by many -, which in turn make the own circulating it as if they were Word of the Lord. Just one example to understand what I mean when I speak of the damage that can result from deficiencies often supported by the ideology of knowledge: a Catholic I wrote a paper citing the Guarini that doing criticism Novus Ordo Mass and enhancing the The old order, speaks of de-sacralization of the Eucharist also linked to the fact that with the reform of the liturgy, the celebrant took to recite the "formula of consecration" aloud. I answered the young: "Maybe this theologian does not know about the history of the liturgy, hence the reason for which was imposed the recitation of that softly and other parts of the Mass. Choice at all connected to some kind of arcane sacredness linked to audible tone of the words themselves, considering that the Lord Jesus said aloud audibly to the Apostles: "This is my body ... this is my blood"; and as was clear in saying those words, if the Holy Spirit had not descended later on in the Upper Room above the Apostles, these would not be able even to perceive the extent of the mystery that was made through the Word of God made man. The soft voice inaudible assembly, or the so-called Secrets, were imposed for reasons of pedagogical-pastoral, thereby avoiding the People, who had already memorized all the parts of the Mass, to recite aloud with the celebrant the entire Eucharistic Canon. Long would the speech and numerous liturgical rubrics posed by certain "traditionalists" on top of the very mysteries of faith, that arise only for reasons of pure motives and opportunities pastoral, not for some kind of arcane and sacred mysteries; and these motives and reasons are called "accidents external", characterized as such by mutability, those damn that Guarini and the retinue of “traditionalists” to follow his and other authors of similar area Lefebvrian not likely to change in the sacred elements, but in real idols: l'idolatry del rubricism.

Particular stir made the article "This Pope we do not like» Alessandro Gnocchi and the late Mario Palmaro [see who] containing views and concerns of all legitimate, starting from which we should not only be open to discussion - salt and yeast of the Church of theological speculation - but also to listen. Known however that these people seem too busy to listen to themselves to listen to others. Gnocchi was made also their views, respectable and legitimate, pursuing so decided not bothering to listen theologians, ecclesiologists and pastors in the care of souls that they might have to say to him very, in particular certain elderly confreres of mine who in half a century of studies, research, application to the ministry and pastoral life of prayer, perhaps they could also send a lot, if his part there was a willingness to listen and eventually to welcome, instead of living folded safety of 'own' the truth that just because you do not have this, you listen meekly and obediently serves equally.

And the truth is serving in the Church, with the Church, for the Church and in the Church, certainly not accusing the Church of not being faithful to the Truth. Unaware that certain thoughts and attitudes are often born very insidious upstream from our idea of ​​Church, because when you are unable to project themselves into the future with hope, then you take refuge in the status quo of a past made static and as such should not ever go. For those who can not live with serenity the present and projected to live in the future hope, not only remains to the refuge in the past, negation, this, fearsome and terrible, who refuses an element not just secondary of our faith: the Church as the people growing and perennial way until the return of Christ at the end of time.

Given then that all these people active in the defense of the Truth and non-negotiable values, always talk about consistency, would be to do a very serious talk not so much about the content of some of their writings, but also on the container in which privileged to time collect them. Speech in which he would also involved the historian Roberto de Mattei, object of my profound esteem yesterday, today and tomorrow. This my perplexity: it is appropriate, for Catholics who claim tireless defenders of true Traditio increasingly menaced by stormy winds, use as a container of the newspaper as an avowed atheist Giuliano Ferrara, man known for his shrewd intelligence but also known to have gone through everything there was to cross into the world of Italian politics, changing repeatedly chariot and rider, flags and banners? Because if these "masters" of the "Catholic coherence" is not clear, then I'll try to clarify the obvious obvious. Giuliano Ferrara and Eugenio Scalfari are both linked by a connecting element: atheism.

These champions of authentic traditio who sign articles in the paper about an avowed atheist and groaning from his columns about how "we do not like this Pope», have no reasonable right to rend their garments before the talks of the Holy Father with the atheist Eugenio Scalfari, to which we must instead recognize the linear continuity of thought protracted that seems a bit 'lacking in Giuliano Ferrara; all stating, a maximum benefit and well-deserved honor of Ferrara, that only fools never change their minds and that often, changing opinion, can be a sign of intelligence and also of consistency. Otherwise instead, forty years ago, Eugenio Scalfari was exactly what it is today, What this could denote both consistency in continuity is lack of openness to an evolution and transformation of human thought. Faced with all these inconsistencies - which are not incongruities of Ferrara but of certain hardline Catholics&pure who use the columns of his newspaper as a showcase - the interpretation key in which we can find an adequate answer is once again all contained in a word: ideology.

I would never dare to present myself as a defender of the authentic truth and pure Traditio "The Church is drawing" - place of Truth and Traditio are just devout servant and in the ways in which the Church commands us to be me — I'd never not to publish my writings on The Manifesto Communist, because in addition to the content you need to evaluate the container, who runs it and who directs. That said, I wonder: to all this we have never thought Roberto de Mattei, Alessandro Gnocchi and all the tips of their combative and prominent critic entourage?

This type of "traditionalists" that I recently compared to the Communists Italian and French before the Russian tanks invaded Prague silent, when to be touched was their darling, the Bishop of Albenga Mario Oliveri [see who], reacted with silence, palesandosi as a new edition of Animal Farm by George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others ". It pains me to say it, but the disaster emerged in the Diocese of Albenga, and especially on the side of morality, are not verified incidents of such gravity in the dioceses governed by certain bishops so-called hyper-conciliarists. Then we must assume that these champions of Traditio they receive no special moral problems in their foundations and their Mass in the ancient rite small armies of pluridivorziati; for these defenders of the sacred values ​​of the family not remain troubled, rather just pretend not to see some of their wealthy benefactors sixties that arise in their circles traditional with his girlfriend of three decades … Well, for these defenders of the sacred family values, Perhaps, also two types of atheism: atheism left, to Scalfari, that atheism is bad because of the left; and atheism right, to Ferrara, instead it is a good atheism, because it is right. And having said that I look forward to denials, not silence, like when I recently accused these people in the public square to have used the poor Franciscans of the Immaculate for ideological purposes bringing them greater harm that could be avoided, sending for this purpose the office the famous “ecclesiologist” and expert “canonist” Zeljko M, author of a book divorced from reality, as to time and place will be demonstrated by the competent offices of the Holy See [see who], place this author, subject my irony to say the least due, does not even know where to lodge, the ecclesiology and canon law; and this not because I say so, but because it shows his book.

I wish these people from morality malleable, capable on the one hand to threaten with their catechisms teenagers toast in the flames of hell if they dare to masturbate, but on the other hand so lenient, or better Blind when it comes to the lives of some of their cheerful wealthy financiers, reassure us that he has never taken a penny from the extreme American right, nor by some wealthy Brazilian entrepreneurs, or by Europeans who got rich by magic in Brazil, through which and because of which there are in that country on the one hand their villas Pharaonic - if anything with adjoining chapel built near the Olympic pool where we celebrate Mass with the Missal of St. Pius V - the other slums and abandoned children on the streets who can not march for life, being too busy trying to save his life. Needless to say: who knows my writing and my books, knows that I am not a member of the Liberation Theology, I am a priest and a Catholic theologian, Apostolic Roman with a certain vocation to give a little 'hard time to the Pharisees hypocrites, saying if necessary to the good loyal: pay attention, because those "filter out the gnat and then s'ingoiano camel […] clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and excess " [CF. Mt 23, 24-25], and in this case, in addition to not do what they do, our good faithful do not have to do mostly what they say seriously wrong and diffuse.

In the sixties, the Church celebrated its twenty-first council in which all did not go well, but one fact is certain: that Council celebrated by the Fathers of the Church under the authority of Peter has sanctioned the new doctrines that are binding on the whole body of the faithful, especially for bishops, i presbiteri, the deacons, the men and women religious. Using the concept of pastoral to reach say above and below the lines that "basically it was just a pastoral council" and as such leaves the time it is, it is not wrong but theologically aberrant. We all know that the Council was followed by a post council that in the name of the interpretation or the application has created problems, with powerful cordate of modernists and theologians that by listening only themselves have fallen in heresy, after creating their own council egomenico and their doctrines. Awareness, this, that not only is clear to me, but which are stuffed, because God has been good enough to get me on my way to meet great men and witnesses of the faith as Divo Barsotti and Cornelio Fabro; because for years they are in connection with the two older theologians together with whom we carry this magazine, both members and heirs of the most distinguished schools of theology, who have lived in close contact with some people for whom it is possible that tomorrow the Church to proclaim the saints and confessors of the faith, as in the case of the young and talented Dominican theologian Tomas Tyn. And the proof of facts, as a man of fifty, I think I have matured a useful feature to me and to the faithful who approach me as a confessor, spiritual director and teacher of doctrine: the wise masters with caution, justice, fortitude and temperance, I listen to them and follow them praising God for giving me blessed facendomeli meet on my way human and priestly. I know better dall'aggredirli or censor, Unless never forget them or deny them in the name of my questionable and arrogant "you're wrong" because "I say…”, therefore “is true only what I say”.

Be aware however, that within the Church we are experiencing a great crisis of faith that generates a terrible doctrinal crisis and consequently a moral crisis, does not mean to say erroneously, as do Lefebvre and people close to their area, the problem is that the council and that the council after it is the obvious consequence, because this is equivalent in every way to assert that because a young incapable took secretly to a professional driver in his Ferrari, causing an accident with it and damaging the car itself, is the fault of the Maranello factory and Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, who was managing director of the company.

I fear that some do not want to understand that the problebut the current ecclesial is no longer the council or the post council which often has upset the council; the problem is that after half a century by the celebration of the council, after decades of devastation made by the best of the worst of many theologians, Today we have come to the radical change of an era during which will sepoltto the church structure as sin today we understood and lived outwardly, to project in the future become the Church the Mystical Body of Christ that will live up to his return to the end of time. Accidents external, metaphysically speaking, before have changed, then they ended up no longer be adequate to preserve the immutable and eternal essence of the Word of God made man who turned out being born from the womb of the Virgin Mary, dying and rising from the dead; and that before offering himself as a sacrifice, he founded his Church on the rock of Peter, giving us his perennial presence alive through the Eucharist, his memorial holy and living, center and heart engine of ecclesial life.

The danger and the authentic aberration in the world of a certain "Tradition" is to have lost this basic metaphysical concept ended up believing that the existence of the substance depends on the external accidents, from the past that does not pass and that this should be splinted, mummified, up to consider elements such as eternal and immutable external accidents; just as if they depended essentially eternal and unchangeable. No coincidence that I used the term aberration theological understanding in the etymological sense of the term: wander outside the path of truth.

In this time in which the Church is undergoing a radical change of epoch, the central figure and decisive is that the Holy Father Francis, that pontiff that many Catholics do not like but that at the same time is liked by all those who have based their lives on a non-Catholic way of life and thinking. Many who feel disoriented or embarrassed by some of his gestures end up by saying "we do not like this Pope». Some examples: the Supreme Pontiff who opens her hands clasped to a small altar boy asking "have you glued hands?» [who], saluting with pollicione up like old Uncle of America, you put a nose clown next to a married couple with a lot of bride introduced to the presence of the Holy Father a bit 'too discovery and scollacciata. Or the latest of series: in apostolic visit to the Philippines, the Holy Father greeted by a pair of horns together with one of his cardinal. Obviously it was immediately explained hereinafter that the gesture, in Filipino culture, has nothing to do with rock satanic which they did immediately recall the apocalyptic and hunters antichrists, it is a gesture that means: "I saw Love».

Obviously I'm not the first to discuss fears and false modesty clerical on what can be undesirable a similar gesture made by the Roman Pontiff taken by photographers and television stations across the world, Also because it is said that it is neither simple nor easy to explain to many Filipinos do not - that the majority of the inhabitants of this world - that those horns mean "I love you" and that this is not a gesture instead of straight out of a scene from the film The Marchese del Grillo, where the great Paolo Stoppa in the role of Pius VII closes pièce comic by the horns, after the Roman nobleman played by another great, Alberto Sordi, had toppled as usual using the Supreme Pontiff on the chair gestatoria, who felt the shock blurts: "You want me to break your neck?». Replica gentleman joker: "Holiness, a dead pope if he makes another!» [see who]. But it was precisely Paolo Stoppa in the role of Pius VII and Alberto Sordi in those of the Marchese del Grillo, was not the reigning Pontiff in apostolic visit to an Asian country in the company of one of his cardinal, surrounded by photographers and cameramen of the press agencies and television stations across the world, while both ended up immortalized smiling with a nice pair of horns printed on their right hands.

In Jewish tradition archaic, to seal a faithful solemn promise the men would put his palm open on the genital organ, on which he had been impressed with the circumcision Covenant Alliance. Well, say that the Holy Father, after eating peppers in the evening and other heavy foods decides the next morning to create me Cardinal, thus risking to cause cardiac arrest in all those examples that certain paradoxical because they do not make them in the red biretta us hope for real. I doubt that during the consistory, receiving the red hat, I would take my hand genital organ to manifest through a significant gesture archaic my faithful devotion to the Roman Pontiff even to the shedding of blood, I would limit myself to kneel and kiss his right hand. Why I am I, are not the Marchese del Grillo revived, at least during the public official ceremonies, then, in private with friends, I can be even worse than the collegiate nobleman played by Alberto Sordi.

Another complaint I sometimes hear is "this Pope is not adequate '. If we think about it no one is suitable to be a priest, bishop, Roman pontiff. A certain offices, within which lies the mystery of the Church and the mystery of the sacraments of grace, one can never be adequate. Not even the saints were worthy to participate in the ministerial priesthood of Christ or to become successor of the rock on which Christ himself has built his Church. As proof of the above-written would be enough to go to St. John Vianney or St. Pio of Pietrelcina and ask: "You feel worthy, to participate in the mystery of grace to the ministerial priesthood of Christ, vero?». I'm afraid that the second of these two saints, in a particular way, He could have reacted in a violent way. Among other things we must never forget that Peter himself, chosen by the Lord Himself, was a limited man who showed all its weaknesses and frailties. So let's see what the other hand: and if the Holy Father Francis slammed in his face in a direct and healthy as any of us, from him, is adequate, before the mystery of grace of the ministerial priesthood? And if behind the lines, beyond certain gestures sometimes baffling, would break the patina of all those processed accidents external changeable by means of which, through layers and layers of solidified clericalism and Dad&fat with the worst worldly powers, we ended up feeling even appropriate to that for which no human being can be said to be suitable and worthy? And if the Holy Father wanted to dispel all those structures and those trappings that have come to be used not to honor and dignity to the Holy Church of Christ - as it should be - but the clergy who hold themselves to using their high honors excuse the honor that we must always pay tribute to the Holy Bride of Christ, to which no building, no metal, no stone and no fabric can be sufficiently valuable? Why poverty should always end up under the steps of the altar and inside the churches the word sloppiness should be banned, because God always offers you the great and the maximum.

Three months after his election, responding to an interviewer, I defined the Holy Father Francesco an enigma. And every man in his own way it is [see who]. Today, after almost two years, I confirm what I said at the time, with a certainty gained further: behind this conundrum is the Holy Spirit, we do not know yet how it will operate. One thing is certain: is operating, are we that we are not yet able to decipher his work; perhaps not even the individual concerned is able to understand the plans that God intends to accomplish through him.

I am saddened by the continuing rise of magazines telematics behind traditionalism conceal sedevacantism. It is blasphemy that would-Catholics put in the network of blogs titrated See Journal FALLEN [acts seat apostatic], where to make the Roman Pontiff, indicated as an apostate, object of insults and insults. It is distressing to note the large number of sites and blogs chasing catastrofismi apocalyptic in the most unadulterated sense of the term, because the Revelation of the Apostle John is the book of hope par excellence that tells the great conquest of the ancient enemy, l'Antichrist, whose defeat is already written since the beginning of time. The Apocalypse is the triumph of faith, of hope and charity in an eschatological key. And all Gentlemen and Ladies much titrated and noble I mentioned one by one in my article, are directly guilty of all this, because for these people, they and their writings, represent a reference point, therefore have little to do false lovers Church suffering inside, because the truth is quite another: with a foot are inside it, with each other between Lefebvre who idolize the past that does not pass and the sedevacantists catatonic.

In one of several sites Vera&Pure Tradition time ago I read the rant of a priest of the Society Of Saint Pius X showing that the squalor of a theological education and training for the priesthood perhaps guided by four formulas of neo-scholastic decadent however misunderstood, explained that the reigning Pontiff was just punishment given by Christ to the Church for the drifts post conciliar. That in the post council there were some serious drifts is indubitable, readers who follow us on these pages telematics know how and by what reasoning articulated fathers the island of Patmos have always shown one by one. State, however, that Christ, through the Successor of Peter, punish his Church, is such stupidity that does not even deserve the high title of heresy. How can exist and find followed by petty minds to the point to say that Christ, by Peter on which he built his Church, decided to punish himself ...? Just so: himself! Because the Church is the body of which Christ is the head and we are living members. The Church of Christ is, is not of the Popes of the period before the Second Vatican Council or of the next. The holiness of the Church of the Body of which Christ is the head, is in that power of sanctification which God exercises despite human sinfulness. For this reason the Church is defined by Ambrose chaste whore, holy and sinful, while paragraph VIII of the dogmatic constitution The light recital:

Christ, "Saint, innocent, spotless” [cf. EB 7, 26], knew no sin [cf. 2 Color 5, 21] and came only to expiate the sins of the people [cf Eb 2, 17], the church, embracing in its bosom sinners and therefore holy and always in need of purification, always follows the path of penance and renewal.

Affirm that the Church is sinful is misleading, if the whole is expressed out from a clear context such as that which refers Sant'Ambrogio or The light; because sinners are the men who make it up and that often disfigure.

I'm not afraid to admit with pain and honesty that many of our seminaries and theological faculties from many of our priests come out of the worst heresies stuffed modernist, or grown with poisonous teologismi of Karl Rahner. But also by the “most holy” seminar Ecône out apparently disturbing priests able to speak of Christ, who through the successor of Peter, the Church punishes. For this I wonder if at Ecône, where, however, recite or sing profession of faith in beautiful Latin "sacred", Are not accustomed to recite words that sound something like this: We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Or are we to infer that after Vatican II, the Church has lost its inherent sanctity and indefectibility, has ceased to be the body of which Christ is the head and that is why she was punished by God? Why say that Christ punishes his Church is theologically consistent as it would be to say that God the Father, through his sacrifice on the cross, castigated the Son and the Holy Spirit, disagreeing on such choice, ended in turn to get angry and fight with him.

To all those who feel uneasy about noses clown, horns greeting to Filipinos and so on, I repeat what I often repeat in the confessional or during spiritual direction to many of the faithful bewildered: go beyond the man himself and worshiped the truth of faith in the mystery of the Church built on Peter, who received a mandate from Christ sent his own ministry of authority in all its successors. The Church is not the Holy Father Francis, as he first was of Benedict XVI, Pius XII, of Pius X. It was not Peter himself chose as his vicar on earth by the Word of God in person. The Church of Christ is, and is still governed by the Holy Spirit; and as has been and may still be disfigured by men, will always remain holy and immaculate Bride of the Redeemer.

During the Second Vatican Council 1 del l'assise, Blessed Pius IX did impress these words about the relationship between faith and reason:

[…] although faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. The same God, indeed, who reveals mysteries and infuses faith, has also deposed the light of reason in the human […] not only faith and reason can never be in conflict with each other, but there may be a mutual help. The right reason, indeed, demonstrates the fundamentals of the faith, illuminated by its light can cultivate the science of divine things; faith liberates protects reason from errors and enhanced by multiple cognitions. Therefore, the church, is far from opposing to the study of the arts and human disciplines, anything but the favors and promotes in every way [Session III 24 April 1870, Chapter IV: "Faith and Reason"]

One hundred and twenty years later, Saint John Paul II, referring to the teaching of his predecessor Pius IX, in his Encyclical Fides et Ratio wrote:

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth. And God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth and, definitely, to know Him because, knowing and loving God, can also come to the fullness of truth about themselves ".

Up to a certain point, we used the reason, with which we came to the big open door of faith, now, to cross the door of hope beyond which there is Christ, Proceed with a real act of faith, which is not a blind act, but an act that certainty entirely summed up in the Creed. In the Holy Father Francis we must see the mystery founding of the Church, without getting trapped in front of the entrance to this door wide open, netted un nose grant clown and a pair of horns. Because the Holy Spirit is working and Christ will save anyway his Church. And in a future, perhaps close, when we will be revealed those who were God's plans, understand that this Pope was the fruit of grace and mercy of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. For this I need to pause the reasonable human judgment and proceed on the wings of faith, then believe, worship and follow the rock on which Christ built his Church.

Can some "traditionalists", apocalyptic cosmic, discoverers of antichrists, hunters alleged heresies papal, worshipers of headings and a static past that must not pass, indomitable defenders of the fly of their non-negotiable values everybody subjective yet Gobblers professionals camel, abandon the dark charm homocentric of Pelagius and follow faithfully the pattern of the holy bishop and doctor of the Church Augustine of Hippo, despite seeing it all and beyond all God's work even in poor and inadequate person of the Holy Father Francis, servant of the servants of God, not up before the Mystery as always we are all of us born with original sin and subject to the snares of evil, but potential and extraordinary means of grace and salvation.

______________________________________________________

Christ conquers eseguito dai cathedral choir

VITTORIO MESSORI DEFEND AGAINST FAKE DOGMAS LEONARDO BOFF

 

I rise on the issue of Messori not to approve or disapprove of what he wrote, but to defend it from criticism dutifully violent and misguided religious who appears as a theologian and journalist accused of bad faith or ignorance in theology. It is Leonardo Boff. His criticism is Messori, as it were, the sum of all the nonsense that the ideologues of "liberation theology" they wrote, before and after the condemnation by the Holy See, on the message of the Gospel and on the action of the Church in the world.

The considerations that Vittorio Messori published on Corriere della Sera on the pontificate of Pope Bergoglio last year 24 December [see who] have aroused, as was predictable, many different reactions. Many have shared them, others criticized them harshly. I don't go into the merits of those evaluations, which, however, I consider legitimate. This is a serious journalist, of a well-documented historian and above all of a Catholic of sincere and enlightened faith. I have known him personally for many years, I have read all of his books, starting with the first and most famous, those Hypothesis about Jesus that gave too much space to a fideistic interpretation of Pascal but still had a remarkable apologetic efficacy. In recent times I have always read with interest and also with pleasure your column on Helm. There were Catholic journalists like that! Pity, I always told myself, that he was not allowed to continue writing about To come ... It would have been good for the "Catholic newspaper" (and for me too, that from that newspaper I was literally pilloried).

Ma, I repeat, I do not enter into the merits of his considerations on the pontificate of Pope Bergoglio, because I am of the opinion that journalists should limit themselves to information for the affairs of the Church, which is their job and their specific mission, without influencing Catholic public opinion with their personal opinions, inevitably partial, in the sense that they are able to describe only a part of the ecclesial reality and express on it only the point of view of a part of the people of God.

As I have already written on the Compass, I prefer that ecclesial current events be treated with authentically theological competence and from an exclusively pastoral point of view. Myself, worried as a priest about the doctrinal disorientation I perceive among the faithful, I have spoken several times on the "Bergoglio question" inviting Catholics to disregard what is the daily bread of the "Vaticanists" (phrases and gestures that suggest "openings" or "closings", appointments and dismissals of senior prelates), instead, he is intelligently interested in what is properly the Magisterium of the Church. There, in the documents of the magisterium of the Church (which is at certain fundamental points immutable and perennial, in others it historically proceeds with the appropriate "reforms in continuity") the Catholics, today as always, they find the sure guide of their conscience, the sure orientation to profess and live the faith in their daily existence.

But now I speak on the Messori affair, not to approve or disapprove of what he wrote, but to defend it (it is only right) from the violent and insane criticism of a religious who presents himself as a theologian and accuses the journalist of bad faith or ignorance in theological matters. It is Leonardo Boff. His criticism of Messori (click here) represents, as it were, the sum of all the nonsense that the ideologues of "liberation theology" they wrote, before and after the condemnation by the Holy See, on the message of the Gospel and on the action of the Church in the world.

Boff accuses Messori of ignoring the role of the "Spirit", who, according to him, it would act even and even better outside the Catholic Church, who can't "learn from others". In this regard Boff, with the tone of the defender of what he calls the Holy Spirit, get to write: “It means being blasphemous against the Holy Spirit to think that others have only thought wrong. For this reason, an open Church as Francis of Rome wants it is extremely important. It must be open to the irruptions of the Spirit called by some theologians "the fantasy of God", because of its creativity and novelty, in companies, in the world, in the history of peoples, in individuals, in the Churches and also in the Catholic Church ", which, before Francesco, she would have been too tied to Christ, too "Christocentric".

According to the former Franciscan, that when he is interested he poses as a lover of doctrine (his), Vittorio Messori is terribly lacking in theology: he "runs into the theological error of Christomonism, that is, only Christ counts. There isn't really a place for the Holy Spirit. Everything in the Church is resolved with Christ alone, something that the Jesus of the Gospels does not exactly want ".

Then, returning to take on the role of the antidogmatist, adds: "Without the Holy Spirit the Church becomes a heavy institution, boring, without creativity and, at a certain point, it has nothing to say to the world that is not always doctrine upon doctrine, without arousing hope and joy of living ". He would also ignore, poor Messori, religious sociology: he would not have yet understood that Latin America is the true center of the Catholic Church today, even if the number of Latin Americans who declare themselves Catholics is decreasing due to the widespread proselytism of Protestant sects (indeed, perhaps precisely for this reason Boff believes that Latin America is at the forefront).

Christianity and theology would have made great strides in Latin America (in Brazil which is the home of Leonardo Boff, in Peru which is the homeland of Gustavo Gutiérrez, and in Argentina which is the homeland of Jorge Mario Bergoglio) for having listened to the "Spirit", thanks also to the indigenous culture (pre-Columbian) which would free the Church from the doctrinal abstractness of European theology, of the German one in particular (the controversial target is Benedict XVI, fondly remembered by Messori), knowing how to interpret the Gospel in harmony with the demands for liberation of the popular masses. Let it be said in parentheses, because it is not very important here, the myth of native Latin American theology is immediately disproved, accidentally, Boff same as when he quotes as the only theological authority his teacher Johan Baptist Metz, Germany initiator of the "political theology" from which are derived the Latin American liberation theologians, formed all in Belgium, France and Germany, starting with the Peruvian Gustavo Gutiérrez. It is not Central European, indeed its German, Karl Marx, the inspirer of the first "liberation theology"?

But this, I said, it's just a sarcastic brackets. The serious talk is theologically, first of all because it is the theological approach the only one that interests me when the Church speaks of current and possible changes in Church doctrine, and then because the main topic of Boff's speech is precisely the "voice of the Spirit", that Pope Bergoglio would have listened docilely while his predecessors, in particular Benedict XVI, they would have ignored, closed as they were in "Christocentrism", which for Boff means dogmatism, juridicism, traditionalism, Vatican centralism.

Now I wonder: what is the point, theologically speaking, claim exclusivity in the interpretation of "what the Spirit says to the churches"? It's still. what is the point, theologically speaking, oppose his own interpretation of the designs of the Holy Spirit to the dogmatic and moral doctrine of the Church? Such speeches are understandable, even if illogical, in the mouth of heretics and schismatics, in the mouth of the propagandists of one of the many sects that have invaded the Christian West, vaguely related to Christianity or directly inspired by Buddhism, but not in the mouth of those who present themselves as Catholics and moreover theologian.

The fundamental norm of an authentically theological discourse, as I have clearly explained in my treatise on True and false theology (where Leonardo Boff is not mentioned, but his masters are mentioned). It is the intention to rationally illustrate the truth revealed by God in Christ Jesus, who entrusted the authentic interpretation of his Gospel to his Church, that is, to the Apostles and their legitimate successors, the bishops in communion with the Pope, who also individually enjoys the charisma of infallibility.

In practical terms, this means that someone like Boff, who despises dogmas and attributes to himself that infallibility that he does not recognize in the Church's magisterium, he does not speak as a theologian. Of course, I give him the right to have his ideas, even the craziest, on Christianity, but if he speaks in public addressing Catholics, I have a duty to warn believers that he does not have the authority that belongs to a theologian in the Catholic Church: as I always say in these cases, it is a false prophet and a bad teacher. I have said this several times about Vito Mancuso and Enzo Bianchi, I did not hesitate to say it also about Bruno Forte and Gianfranco Ravasi, who occupy prominent positions in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Who wants to listen to their theories, know at least that you do so at your own risk (soul, is intende); I have warned everyone I could.

To end with Boff. What does a Christian know about the Holy Spirit, which like God is absolutely transcendent? His Person, within the "immanent Trinity", it is particularly inaccessible to human knowledge, so much so that he is called "the unknown God", and also its action in the world (the so-called "Economic Trinity") it is completely invisible, except by public disclosure. But the public revelation is that of the Son of God, the Incarnate Word, the Emmanuel, the "God-with-us".

What We Can Know About God's Mysteries it is only what Christ has revealed to us. How do you contrast your own (claims) knowledge of the action of the Spirit to what Christ revealed to us by the same Spirit? And Christ revealed to us that the Holy Spirit was sent to us by himself and by the Father, on the day of Pentecost, to make it effective all over the world, for all the time of history, the saving action of the Church of Christ, through the proclamation of the Gospel and the grace of the sacraments. This is what we know about the Holy Spirit, and therefore only this can be said theologically, that is seriously, with the pretense of being listened to by believers.

The true theologian explains and applies to his time and to the people he addresses the truth contained in public revelation, that is, in the doctrine of the Church. The true theologian does not pretend, as the Gnostics do, to know more than I know, of the mysteries of God, any faithful, a person who at any time has received divine revelation with sincere faith. The true theologian, above all, he does not pretend to be divine truth what are his personal and arbitrary conjectures, whatever the sincerity with which these are served up to the people (if they lied knowing they were lying, the false prophets are not only deluded but just "seducers", like the Antichrist of which Scripture speaks).

_____________________________________

Article Published on 2 January 2015 his

cliccare sul logo per aprire l’articolo